This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Snags …I was watching the C.B.C. Special Report last night with Brian Stewart. He was interviewing a Professor from University Of Toronto , School of Business. He was discussing the 700 Billion Plan in the U.S. and other plans going on throughout the globe.

He advises watch....The U.K has injected even more in to their banking system , watch the amount that will be injected by Belgium , Germany's government is now in the injecting cash to banks and interesting comment he thinks Spain maybe even more impacted than the above with their banks.
His theory in the EU no one regulatory body that governs Banking and that Banks from all countries have crossed respective national borders so the " liquidity " problem will spread throughout the whole EU.

Plain and simple. This is more proof that, as enticing as it is to manufacture investment vehicles, restricting mainstream investing to traditional asset classes (including real estate, commodities, anything with substance, etc.) is the only way to control the economy. When companies are allowed to trade derivatives to the extent that they have (the market for ALL derivatives is larger than the broader markets), there is no way to limit downside. Basically, the market has the potential to implode. With traditional investments, at least your loss is limited to your investment. If we were currently only concerned about the loss in subprime, mortgage-backed securities, we would be OK. But it goes way, WAY beyond that. The losses have been multiplied by huge factors due to credit default swaps (un-regulated, off-balance sheet debt insurance) and use of leverage.

You're right. And the problem is, NOBODY has the answer. My philosophy right now is that if my client's short-term money is protected (like 5 year's worth), then making knee-jerk changes in equities (and even bonds) is probably not wise. It is not inconceivable to have a sustained 10-15% rally over the course of a day or two, and I don't want to lock in my clients' losses by being out of the market with their long-term money. Even though that won't get them back to the proverbial "even", and the market will still be down, missing a rally like that would just be bad. I feel that you just have to believe in the markets and ride this one out. Otherwise, you are throwing in the towel and locking in losses (unless of course, you are the rare bird that knows when the market will recover).

Trust me (actually, don't), all it will take is a few big names to declare that the market is "recovering" and there will be some sort of huge rally from people diving back in (even if it's a BS rally). So much of this is emotional now.

GD it Bill that blog was so full of assumptions, baseless theories and clutter that it’s given me a f’n migrane. I can’t believe I was subjected to read that.

Not enough pictures for you?
I don't know how you define "assumptions, baseless theories, and clutter" but I can assure you that Bill is spot on in his analysis. Great read, Bill. I've never been so sure about my decision to join my current firm than I am now.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]GD it Bill that blog was so full of assumptions, baseless theories and clutter that it’s given me a f’n migrane. I can’t believe I was subjected to read that.

Not enough pictures for you?
I don't know how you define "assumptions, baseless theories, and clutter" but I can assure you that Bill is spot on in his analysis. Great read, Bill. I've never been so sure about my decision to join my current firm than I am now.[/quote]

No you can't. There is not one empirical evidence provided in the article. Just BS BS BS. BECAUSE there is nothing that suggests that employees working in smaller ships have a moral code embodied into their DNA. Greed, ignorance, and the need to make a buck at the expense of others does not discriminate against how big/small of a firm you work for. To suggest that people deserved this because they opted to go to F'n JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch instead of a local bank is completely ignorant and if you choose to believe him than you're the tool.

Look up a regional bank, Suntrust. Down 13% today. Go read why. There's my evidence. Show me how people rushing to credit unions, banks, mom and pop shows would have adverted this crisis (well, maybe not credit unions per se)?

How many people actually think to themselves and question what kind of leverage and exposure a bank has? Did you honestly walk into a bank 5 years ago and ask "I wonder if their exposed to subprime mortgages" or go to Merrill Lynch asking "Gee I wonder if they sell Auction rate securities and sell securities backed by Subprime"? No.

LEt me tell you another factoid: I have a friend who works at the border of Texas (south...near Corpus Christi and heading towards the island). Place is overrun with regional B/d's and banks. You know what they shove down people's throats? Insurance products that will make them millions in 10 years. Why? Because the poeple do not know better and the regional needs to make a money to compete with big wigs. They have advertisements and billboards outside their shop pitching annuities that cap upside potential and pay the insurer a good check (forgte the name of this particular product). And, they get away with it because they can say: "MER, CIti are in it for the money. Buy my insurance product instead".

The series of events taking place fall simply on bad business practice, regulation and uneducated consumers. These traits and the size of a company these people deal with are NOT mutually exclusive my friend. That is a fact unless, once again as I suggested, real evidence can be shown. The post is assumptive because of the notion that people walk around hoping to get 3 T shirts for $15 and thinking bigger is better. I mean, WTF. This is clutter, baseless and has nothing to do with anything happening today. Did Bill walk up to every person on the street, ask them what they thought? Was there a survey I am aware of?

How many of you walked into a large bank because they were offering T-shirts? This is insulting and false and puts all blame solely on the consumer. But **** me and my need for pictures right? I'm supposed to believe that smaller competitors are not out to make a buck either? "Sorry, Mr Client, but if we accept your deposit we no longer qualify being a regional and thus must conform our business practice to unethically sell you this hur mortgage backed security/sell you a loan you don't need"

[quote=deekay][quote=anabuhabkuss]GD it Bill that blog was so full of assumptions, baseless theories and clutter that it’s given me a f’n migrane. I can’t believe I was subjected to read that.

Not enough pictures for you?
I don't know how you define "assumptions, baseless theories, and clutter" but I can assure you that Bill is spot on in his analysis. Great read, Bill. I've never been so sure about my decision to join my current firm than I am now.[/quote]

No you can't. There is not one empirical evidence provided in the article. Just BS BS BS. BECAUSE there is nothing that suggests that employees working in smaller ships have a moral code embodied into their DNA. Greed, ignorance, and the need to make a buck at the expense of others does not discriminate against how big/small of a firm you work for. To suggest that people deserved this because they opted to go to F'n JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch instead of a local bank is completely ignorant and if you choose to believe him than you're the tool.
Uhh...he's making more of a comment about the direction that these large companies took. He's not necessarily bashing the FA or other employees. There are a lot of investors who flocked to the big bd's because they like to say "I'm at Merrill/SB/Morgan..". Part of that attraction is the mentality of "bigger = better".

Look up a regional bank, Suntrust. Down 13% today. Go read why. There's my evidence. Show me how people rushing to credit unions, banks, mom and pop shows would have adverted this crisis (well, maybe not credit unions per se)?

How many people actually think to themselves and question what kind of leverage and exposure a bank has? Did you honestly walk into a bank 5 years ago and ask "I wonder if their exposed to subprime mortgages" or go to Merrill Lynch asking "Gee I wonder if they sell Auction rate securities and sell securities backed by Subprime"? No.
Of course they didn't. Both firm and client can and should be held accountable. Greed and ignorance played a big part. Many of these products were invented as a way to make more profits/become bigger/etc. They knew this stuff could blow up, but the firms ignored it or were too arrogant to deal with it.

LEt me tell you another factoid: I have a friend who works at the border of Texas (south...near Corpus Christi and heading towards the island). Place is overrun with regional B/d's and banks. You know what they shove down people's throats? Insurance products that will make them millions in 10 years. Why? Because the poeple do not know better and the regional needs to make a money to compete with big wigs. They have advertisements and billboards outside their shop pitching annuities that cap upside potential and pay the insurer a good check (forgte the name of this particular product). And, they get away with it because they can say: "MER, CIti are in it for the money. Buy my insurance product instead".
I believe you are referring to equity indexed annuities. These are designed for fixed annuity and CD buyers who are willing to take the risk of a smaller ROR for the potential of a higher ROR. The product itself is not bad. How it is sold is a different story. I would make the argument that, given the level of scrutiny EIAs have received recently, compliance is stepping up their due diligence.

Here's a newsflash, ana: banks need to make a profit to survive. If you can make a profit while doing good for your client, and pay the sales person in the process, that's a great thing. Banks make 20-30% on a CD purchases. But nobody seems to bat an eyelash when a bank CSR jams a client into one.

The series of events taking place fall simply on bad business practice, regulation and uneducated consumers. These traits and the size of a company these people deal with are NOT mutually exclusive my friend. That is a fact unless, once again as I suggested, real evidence can be shown. The post is assumptive because of the notion that people walk around hoping to get 3 T shirts for $15 and thinking bigger is better. I mean, WTF. This is clutter, baseless and has nothing to do with anything happening today. Did Bill walk up to every person on the street, ask them what they thought? Was there a survey I am aware of?
Holy crap, guy, how did you come up with this line? He states from the beginning that this is a "theory". This isn't based off empirical evidence or surveys or whatever. This is from years of observation that, frankly, I agree with. Many firms, big and small, care about profitability above all else. Because the big firms have most of the assets, they hold a bigger responsibility in these problems. Seriously, how hard is this to understand?

How many of you walked into a large bank because they were offering T-shirts? This is insulting and false and puts all blame solely on the consumer. But **** me and my need for pictures right? I'm supposed to believe that smaller competitors are not out to make a buck either? "Sorry, Mr Client, but if we accept your deposit we no longer qualify being a regional and thus must conform our business practice to unethically sell you this hur mortgage backed security/sell you a loan you don't need"

You know deekay, when you have a market as volatile as this one where 401ks are dropping, unemployment is rising and europe is on the verge of the same collapse, people want answers, not theories and observations that the majority of their peers ‘might’ think bigger is better and thus, as a result, we are where we are today.

The time spent using metaphors and similies (judas, sheep,$15 T shirts I've never heard of)that do not further nor establish a point would have been better spent researching the facts.

I like the image of an endless stream of Titanics crashing into iceburgs - as the ex Texas fed chief said, when asked, will this happen again, dealing with " Kind of like going to the county fair a playing whack-a-mole."

It would be really helpful that when people start talking about derivatives that they know what they are talking about. I suggest for a starter that you at least distinguish between cash and physical settlement for a CDS. Many CDS’s were created not to insure against default but to create non-investment like returns where there was no physical supply of such debt in quantities large enough to satisify demand of high yield buyers. And The quotes we hear about the size of the market being like $29328347646 trillion gazillion is based on counting the NOTIONAL principal amount with no netting of offsetting exposures.

The CDS debacle wasn’t a big conspiracy, rather, a failed market experiment in leverage. Insurance products are regulated at the state level, I’m not a big fan, but over the years I haven’t heard about insurance products failing.

The media has scared the **** out of everybody about everything, and that's fine with me, countering the overreactions is a fine niche to play in for so called work.